The U.S. cannot leave Iraq now or anytime soon!?

Question

A withdrawal from Iraq now would be seen as a victory for the terrorists and their numbers would grow even more rapidly. Not to mention if we pulled out now we would lose what little world support our government has and world support, I feel, is the only way we can destroy terror. Iraq may not have been the place to start this fight against the terror network, but amidst the civil war over there a lot of terrorists are plotting against us and if we would revamp out militaries goal of occupation, which is slow, and upgrade it to more of a search and destroy type operation, and we defeated the terror network in Iraq, it could very well cripple them, who really knows how many resources they have in Iraq. My point is that if you think the terror network is getting stronger due to the war in Iraq, imagine how strong it would get if they thought they had beaten us in our own war. Cleanse the country of evil, then set up the Democracy, what do you all think? Respectful criticism only please.

coragryph has a terriffic answer.

Answer 1

Well, there really would have been no other place to go in beside Iraq. Iran is what liberals say because "iran posses a greater threat to america" however, iran was WAY too powerful at the time, and still is. plus, there really WERE WMD's http://libertyrocks.wordpress.com/2006/06/17/wmd6_17_06/
so invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein was A GOOD THING!!! secondly, i agree that pulling out now would be disasterous---number one, ur right, the terrorists would see it as a victory number two---if they see it as a victory, then surely they will gain coinfidence and probably go along w/ terror plots and seeing how there are terror plots (look at the recently thwarted one at london heathrow) that could be BIGGER than 9/11, surely the coinfidence will motivate the islamic extremists to attack again. REMEMBER SOMETHING-----SINCE 9/11 AND THE INVASION OF IRAQ< NO TERRORIST ATTACK HAS HAPPENED TO THE UNITED STATES---thats 5 years pretty good- considering the radicalists hatred of the united states

if the UN wasnt a bullsh#t organization, and actually helped us, or at least start to help us, maybe things would go a bit faster

about the proof of WMD's:

that link above is a good place to start ur research, i ended up downloading about 7 iraqi documents, in arabic, and then googled the english transcripts of them

1. 50 Trucks were transported from IRAQ to SYRIA one week before bush invaded
2. One of the Last Pre-War Documents : From Saddam Himself !
IZSP-2003-00000008 (Full Translation)
Order Number: 31
Based on Para B, Article 58 of the Constitution,the following Order is issued :
All people and companies in the private and mixed sectors are forbidden from importing and producing Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons and materials.
All Ministries involved must carry out this order,and must prosecute violators.
Written in Baghdad on 14 Feb 2003.
Saddam Hussein
Top Secret
Western Area.
The above order is from from the President # 1133
15 Feb 2003
#3092,
25 Feb 2003
Please review.
From:
COL Nabeel Lamam Abd-Gabr
Western Area Commander
8 Mar 2003
Secret.
Hmmmmmmmmm.........
If Iraq had no WMD programs prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, why did Saddam order them shut down ?
3. SEARCH ISGQ-2003-00004530 Translation

so basically, even w/o this evidence saddam hussein was a sick mother f#cker and when u add that, money, power, and control + the fact he is a radical muslim who hates the US = future attack on US it's obvious saddam had ties w/ osama and al-qaeda SEARCH CMPC-2003-001488 Translation

Answer 2

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

The loudest (but weakest) argument is that "we're fighting terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." First, there isn't a lot of proof (either way) that what we're doing has any significant impact on what terrorists outside Iraq are doing. Or for that matter, on what terrorists inside Iraq are doing.

It's sheer speculation (might be true, might not) that the insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq would suddenly start attacking US cities if the US left. More likely, they'd continue their own civil war without interference from us. And those terrorists who are planning on hitting the US or Europe probably aren't spending their days planting IEDs along Iraqi highways. They're already overseas planning their attacks.

So, it's highly debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any effect toward stopping other terrorist attacks outside Iraq.

The other arguments all center around nation-building, helping Iraq establish a new government, bring democracy to the region etc. But even if those might be valid goals (and that too is debatable), the methods we're using are hideously inefficient, and apparently ineffective.

Let's look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.

What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.

So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.

Answer 3

You're right, Iraq was not the place to start the fight against terrorism. But, we did -- or I should say he did.

Iraq was never about terrorism. An attack was planned long before 9/11. Don't believe it? Read "Cobra II" by Michael R. Gordon and General Bernard E. Trainor. Dick Cheney even recommended it too all his friends.

Regardless, the invasion took place. Bush's objective was to remove Saddam. That's done. Now it's time to leave. His family agenda has been completed. Iraq should not be occupied by the US like this. The head is off the snake, now let them fix it from the inside out.

Answer 4

you might not be wrong, but it is still a gamble.

here is the problem as i see it... iraq has become a training ground where anyone all over the world can go and fight the us military and see what our techniques are like. it's a laboratory for everyone observing. we are also constrained by the civilian population we are supposedly protecting. if we abandon that role, we will definitely suffer in world opinion. we did not care for the people who had to flee fallujah, and it has become their alamo.

there may be no terror network in iraq. the idea of being able to root it out when we have beheaded it a few times is getting less realistic to me every day. you are right to ask who really knows how strong that network is... we may be standing in the anthill or it may have hundreds of mounds elsewhere.

i don't know how strong we look now with our arms outstretched on this cross we've nailed ourselves to...

Answer 5

The only way the US is EVER going to be able to leave Iraq depends upon the Iraqi people themselves. If the Iraqi people continue to refuse to band together and not deal with the situation at hand and help our military rid their country of terrorists, then the US will be there for quite some time. If, on the other hand they do help our military get rid of the terrorists, we can eventually pull our military out. However, I am sure that we ALWAYS have some sort of presence in Iraq.

Answer 6

So in 20 years when we pull out all the terrorists will be gone from iraq your dreaming, our being there is what is fueling them. We fought a gorilla war in vietnam and no matter how many we killed there were more and i'm afraid the soldiers dying in iraq are dying for the same thing they died for in vietnam and thats nothing. when we leave there the faction that has the popular support will take over remeber we put the shah of iran in power and he was overthrown by the people of iran and the same will happen to any government we leave in iraq when we leave whether its 2 days or 20 years from now.

Answer 7

I agree that we can't leave. That doesn't change the fact that I'm mad as hell that we're there in the first place.

Now, I could have let the whole invasion thing go if it had been done properly. But, they entered a war under false pretenses and then didn't even properly plan for it. They refused to listen to the generals who said that we needed at least 300,000 troops to make the war work. They were so intent on the fact that the Iraqis would welcome us that they failed to plan for a possible insurgency. Their final doing in was their lack of ability to admit when mistakes were made. You can't correct mistakes if you don't acknowledge them.

I don't disagree with your initial assertion, but I also fail to see what benefit there is to staying. "Stay the course" is not a plan for success. The initial plan has to be scrapped and a new one must be developed, and I don't know if this administration has the capability of developing any new plans.

Answer 8

A withdrawal from Iraq would mean we won. We believe in self- determination. We believe the Iraq people should determine their own future. The longer we stay, the longer we seem defeated.

Answer 9

The US shouldnt be IN Iraq in the first place. It was a miscalculated mistake. The world watches when a mammoth moves. Sorry to your country.

Answer 10

Bush has created an impossible situation in Iraq,,, he will leave these problems for the next administration,, he said that last year,, he has no intentions of leaving Iraq,, with or without support,,, If the US gave Bush all their love,, it would not change his mistakes,,,